GuildWiki has been locked down: anonymous editing and account creation are disabled. Current registered users are unaffected. Leave any comments on the Community Portal.



User talk:Viruzzz/archive list

It finally happened[]

I got the same page twice in a row using Special:Random, Revealed EnchantmentViruzzz 19:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you please[]

Can you please let your intentions be known on Community Portal or get up an actual project, before flooding the recent changes. Much appreciated. Ariyen 19:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No — Viruzzz 19:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
And so there's no confusion, I say "No" because the 'project' I'm working on is literally hitting "Random page" and seeing if there's anything wrong with it, Which is not much of a project. And I would be flooding RC whether there was a project or not, so it wouldn't make a difference anyway. — Viruzzz 19:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Recentchanges exists to report edits, not to govern them. Felix Omni Signature.png 21:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
While I agree with that. I think if someone is to do more than 5 edits or so to different pages, doing the same thing. Should have a consensus or at least of all a small project. Showing that hey, I'm going to make these changes to these pages to have consistency, etc. Right now, we still have the tormented pages that need changing to a better wording style, than the lengthly one that Viruzzz gave of which there was no "consensus" in those changes or suggestion of agreeing on a better wording. So yes, I do have an issue with someone making changes to a lot of pages that could cause other problems or be taken the wrong way. Grant it, some changes have been helpful, but pages like I have mentioned need to be fixed now. Ariyen 22:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
GW:BB 22:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
That's no excuse to the pages that are now messed up and waiting on consensus to fix those changes. The talk is on Tormented Sword of which is fixed, but not consistent with the others. Ariyen 22:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
What exactly did he break that is waiting on consensus to fix? BE BOLD! & You are mudafugin valuable say his edits were valuable. ∵Scythe∵ 23:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Ariyen prefers [1] over [2]. (As, obviously, do I; I think the two points are more easily understood as two bullets.)
However, to be fair, I think Viruzzz acted in good faith to make the original edits to those weapons; the original phrasing left a lot to be desired (if I had to choose between the original phrasing and V's, I go with V's).
Ariyen also has a fair point which is: if someone is going to make changes to a class of pages (e.g. all T-weaps), it can be helpful to let people know ahead of time. In some cases, I think it's overkill to do so. Clarifying a minor bullet point and making it consistent across all T-weaps might be a borderline area: it wouldn't have been crazy to provide some background; it's also reasonable to simply boldly go where some contributor should have gone before.
Short story: I hope that Ariyen can respect V as acting in extremely good faith and I hope that Viruzz can respect A for also having the best interests of the community at heart. And: that we can move on to updating T-weapons (and any other weapons) using a mutually agreed-upon phrasing...and moving on to bigger and better things.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 23:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

My edits aren't systematical in any way until I see something broken on many similar pages. I fix what I see is wrong or what could be made better, If it's something that I think may be wrong on multiple related pages (e.g. the tormented weapons, the wintergreen weapons or the armor pages)I take a look at them, and depending on the amount of "wrongness" or inconsistency I will change it or put a discussion up on the category page, or the style guide to find out what it should be changed to. I have done this a handful of times already, some when I'm not entirely happy with the quick fix I made, sometimes when there isn't really a defined "right" way to do it and common sense doesn't suffice.

I mean no disrespect with this, but if all you say is "stop editing, you flood RC" I will ignore it, I check RC myself every 5 edits or so that I make, just to make sure some crafty vandal doesn't sneak in some vandalism, which I think is the main complaint about me flooding RC, am I wrong?

I edit whenever I feel like doing it whenever I have time to kill. I'll stop if it's really a problem, but I don't think most people see it as one. — Viruzzz 04:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits[]

I appreciate you taking the time to add crafting sections for the various armorsets. Useful stuff.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It's actually missing from a lot more of the pages. I noticed it at first on RC where only a few of the edits had the section "Acquisition" rather than "Crafting", after I edited 20 or so I realized it was actually missing from a majority of them, I had to go eat dinner, and forgot about it until I read this, I don't know if it should or shouldn't be there. (Originally by — Viruzzz 04:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC); split to separate distinct threads: ty vs style guides)

Inconsistent style guides[]

The style guide differs from the actual pages by quite a lot I think this is the style guide that should be applied I think I remember Ish doing a large scale update on the armor art pages, so the style guide should probably be updated rather than the articles (also there's 1 guide and probably 200 articles >_>) I'm putting a discussion up on said style guide talkpage — Viruzzz 04:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Just start up a project to fix all of that. :-) Get consensus, which would probably go in your favor and ... Wa-La! Problem solved. Ariyen 04:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I would be great for someone to review the style guides, reconcile them with current practice (obviously getting consensus along the way, which shouldn't be too hard...I hope). And/or modernize them. We have some guidelines that are very 2008. It's a new decade! Anyhow, thanks for whatever you have gotten to so far.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 04:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm the one responsible for that, when I standardized all the armor galleries a few years ago. If an armor was only available by crafting, I didn't see the need to put an additional header under the h2 "Acquisition", since I felt that would just clutter the TOC. I only used h3 headers for armors that had multiple acquisition methods. (Likewise, I only used campaign subheaders if an armor was available in multiple campaigns, cf. A vs B.) But if people now feel that there needs to be an h3 "Crafting" on all armor regardless of whether that is the only acquisition method, that's fine with me. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 05:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I think it should be there, but really should be discussed on GuildWiki talk:Style_and_formatting/Armor/Art rather than here. — Viruzzz 05:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The problem I have with projects and getting consensus for something like that is exactly what you said "You will most likely get consensus" If I think that's the case why not just be bold and do it if I can't imagine a reason why anyone would oppose it? Just seems like useless bureaucracy
The reason I stopped doign it was becuase I saw it was missing in way more articles that I first thought, so I looked in the style guide, and it compeltely differs form all our articles of the type, changing that is something I think should be talked about on that style guide's talk page
Where I think a project is in order is for something like what TEF suggested, e.i. reviewing all the style guides and making sure they are as they should be.
Viruzzz 05:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Hence, Do a project on the style guides. It'd be better to implement your suggestions to the style guides via a sandbox, than to do them on the guides, cause I don't think you'd want a "revert" unless many understood your "changes" or plans. Once consensus, then implement. Being bold and changing those guides might not go so well over some, even if it's to change them to be consistent with the way the armor pages are done now. Ariyen 05:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The reason I don't like sandboxes for things like this is because sandboxes usually don't survive, so if someone looks for documentation when consensus is eventually reached they most likely wont be able to find any, if the discussion is on the talk page it's at least somewhat transparent what went on. — Viruzzz 05:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I was talking about the example, like you did. Not discussions, etc. Thanks. Ariyen 06:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
You can create the sandbox as a subpage to the discussion. There's really no way to have a thorough discussion about how things should/could look without examples. e.g. Style X/Proposal or Style X/Rewrite or Style X/Examples, depending on what makes more sense.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 07:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Another way to do it is to edit the page as proposed, revert yourself, and then link to the historic revision in the discussion. The drawback is that it doesn't work when template changes are proposed; discussing those almost always requires sandbox templates to be made. --◄mendel► 15:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand the coding very well so I wont be proposing any template changes :p — Viruzzz 01:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
That's what we're here for silly :P ∵Scythe∵ 01:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


I have tried to find out if there is a way to do this for a while, so far unsuccessfully.
My question is this, Is it possible to do some personal .css magic to add a link to the same page on GWW?
I use GWW to cross-reference quite often when I am editing and having this would make it much easier.
What I imagine is to link to{{PAGENAME}} and place that link somewhere on the page.
Any chance this is possible? — Viruzzz 11:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you could do it with CSS, but I know it's possible to use Javascript to add tabs up top and links to the sidebar. (I have some that adds a purge tab. If you'd like a tab, I could probably change that easily enough to work as a GWW link.) If you prefer a sidebar link, I'd have to look up how to do that again. Nwash User-Nwash-Eyes.png 11:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I understand CSS somewhat, I don't understand javascript barely at all, so would have to walk me through it, but a tab would work fine if it is possible. — Viruzzz 12:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I believe this should work correctly for all cases:
function addGWWPageLink() 
   var url = location.href;
   var title = url.replace(/^.*[\?&;]title=(.*?)([&;]|$).*$/, '$1');
   if (title == url)
       title = url.replace(/^.*\x2F\x2F.*?\x2F(.*?)(\x3F|$).*$/, '$1');
   if (title)
      addPortletLink('p-cactions', '' + title,
                     'GWW page', 'ca-gww', 'Matching page on Guild Wars Wiki', 'g');
Put this on User:Viruzzz/monobook.js (and if you're using NoScript, you'll need to be sure has permission to run it. If you're not using NoScript, it should just work as long as Javascript's enabled.) Nwash User-Nwash-Eyes.png 13:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
It works beautifully, thank you very much :) — Viruzzz 13:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The Easy Way: Go to Special:Preferences, select the gadget tab, and enable the GWW Switch gadget. Any Javascript that you think would be useful for some people can be made into a gadget, Dr Ishmael is to thank for that one and most of the others. --◄mendel► 13:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Holy shit, I saw that tab before but I actually thought it was some sort of facebook/twitter integration, which I avoid like the plague by the way. I never looked at it before. Those are all pretty useful, the editor takes some getting used to, but It looks like it has a lot of "shortcut" features — Viruzzz 13:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
WikED is awesome (especially the find and replace, that is even more awesome than the rest) and now I don't even have to have greasemonkey in my firefox to use it! :D ∵Scythe∵ 15:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I recommend bothering Randomtime for anyting related to WikEd, he's been using that for years and plugs it every chance he gets. ;-P --◄mendel► 17:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
It looks fairly straight-forward, The interface is ugly as hell, but most of the buttons seem self-explanatory. I get a repeating image in the right of the edit field though, looks like a bug, i don't know if any of you know what that is, Looks like it has something to do with Nwash's sig image link. (or just images in general) — Viruzzz 19:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
It places a (small?) thumbnail in the right side of the edit box whenever it encounters an image to make finding them 'easier,' could be a bug if it's repeating, that, or nwash's images are on top of each other. ∵Scythe∵ 19:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
It is nwash's image, but it's not displaying it as I think it should be. I'll upload a picture to show you what I mean. — Viruzzz 05:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Looks like it's repeating it until it reaches a predetermined size. File:Editwindow_bug.jpgViruzzz 05:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
That's not a bug. It's just something I've seen with the Java editor. I use it as well and I ignore it, because It's a preview or a few previews of the images used. The only things I really keep a look out for is the actual content, the text, codes, etc. Things that I feel are more important, rather than a nuisance. Ariyen 07:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Looks exactly like a bug to me. — Viruzzz 07:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Whether this rates as a glitch or a bug is a distinction that probably differs from person to person. It is the correct image, and since sometimes small images are used as background tiles, tiling the image is probably preferable to enlarging it; not tiling it might mean that it's too small to be noticed. --◄mendel► 08:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree and that's why I don't bother much with it. Ariyen 08:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)